Comments for The Lateral Truthhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth
Writings of a Mild-Mannered ApostateMon, 19 Nov 2018 21:27:50 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8Comment on Gobekli Tepe, Part 4: Animals and Astronomy by Martin Sweatmanhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/11/18/gobekli-tepe-part-4-animals-astronomy/#comment-137005
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 21:27:50 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?p=1180#comment-137005So, Rebecca. Will you publish my detailed response as the 5th article in your GT series? Perhaps with the discovery of the Greenland crater you are feeling a little less secure of your opinions?
]]>Comment on Gobekli Tepe, Part 4: Animals and Astronomy by Martin Sweatmanhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/11/18/gobekli-tepe-part-4-animals-astronomy/#comment-137003
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 08:53:25 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?p=1180#comment-137003Rebecca, your ignorance of the scientific method is astonishing. And therein lies the rub. It seems archaeological types of your ilk are inadequately trained in the scientific method – you simply don’t get it. The truth is, that ship has sailed. Our view is proven, in a scientific sense.

You say ” if you identify the members of Set A (animal images) with the members of Set B, which are related to each other by definition (the asterisms), then you will inevitably find that Set A tests out as significantly related, more so than other possible combinations of animal images.”. Just plain wrong – your reasoning would make it impossible to decode anything with confidence. It seems to me this statistical analysis is out of your league. I agree, there is a degree of subjectivity in our ranking of the asterisms vs animal symbols. So, I ask you, then, to complete your own ranking table, like we did. Until you do this, you cannot criticise ours. So, let’s see your table. As for the issue of pattern matching – this is standard practice in archaeology. Archaeologists do it all the time when comparing their finds. Its accepted – but only when it agrees with your pre-conceived notions, or course.

You say “The distinctive vulture with outspread wings also appears on a slab from the same enclosure, with completely different neighbours: a hyena and a long-legged quadruped.” Now you are falling into the trap you have set yourself. How do you know it is a hyena? Which long-legged quadruped is it? And is this even a vulture/eagle? You see, I can counter this by arguing that if your ‘hyena’ is actually a ‘bear’ then this scene is fully consistent with our interpretation – it is once again giving the date 10,950 to within 250 years. You then point our Pillar 56, the same pillar Notroff et .al. challenged us to interpret in their rebuttal. Well, Dimitrios decoded that one, so I’ll leave it to him to publish the details. Suffice to say, it is again, fully consistent with Pillar 43. Just because you cannot read it, does not mean it cannot be read. The same applies to all your criticisms – you prepare your own trap, and then fall right into it. In fact, there is so much to comment on, that I’ll prepare a detailed rebuttal and send it you. Hopefully you will publish it as the 5th article in your series.

Second, with publication of our latest paper on Palaeolithic art, which I advised you to read before commenting on this work, we prove our view is correct. No more subjectivity – completely objective. There is a common system of time-keeping across Europe into the Near-East (and probably beyond) stretching back into the Ice-Age, and probably going back beyond 40,000 years. This is a fact. Now you need to deal with it. Please read this paper before criticising our work again. You’ll find it very instructive.

Again, therein lies the rub. Archaeological types of your ilk are more than happy when science agrees with your pre-conceived notions. But when the science contradicts them, the science must be wrong! No. You cannot pick-and-choose. It seems to me you are practicing a religion – which I call the ‘Orthodox Church of Archaeology’ in my new book ‘Prehistory Decoded’.

]]>Comment on Gobekli Tepe, Part 2: The Archaeology by Gobekli Tepe, Part 4: Animals and Astronomy • The Lateral Truthhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/11/05/gobekli-tepe-archaeology/#comment-137002
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 06:14:52 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?p=1158#comment-137002[…] 4: Animals and Astronomy Headline Gobekli Tepe Part 3: The Alternative Mainstream Headline Gobekli Tepe, Part 2: The Archaeology Headline Gobekli Tepe, Pt.1: The Background Headline The Myth of Archaeological […]
]]>Comment on Gobekli Tepe, Pt.1: The Background by Gobekli Tepe, Part 4: Animals and Astronomy • The Lateral Truthhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/10/22/gobekli-tepe-pt-1-background/#comment-137001
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 06:14:31 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?p=1146#comment-137001[…] Part 3: The Alternative Mainstream Headline Gobekli Tepe, Part 2: The Archaeology Headline Gobekli Tepe, Pt.1: The Background Headline The Myth of Archaeological […]
]]>Comment on Gobekli Tepe Part 3: The Alternative Mainstream by Martin Sweatmanhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/11/16/gobekli-tepe-part-3-alternative-mainstream/#comment-136987
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 10:03:11 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?p=1172#comment-136987All fine with me, except the idea that ancient cultures were completely disconnected and independent. My latest work shows this is not the case, at least in terms of astronomy and, therefore religion/mythology. And if astronomy and religion/mythology are widely connected very far back in time, then why not other aspects of technology? Just because different crops turn up in different regions, it doesn’t mean their cultures are disconnected. I think this is another paradigm we are challenging, although, I agree, it’ll be a long hard slog to convince people. Take, for example, European Palaeolithic cave art. There is continuity in this art, and now astronomy, and presumably myth/religion (see Michael Witzel), for many 10s of thousands of years. Kind of blows your ‘disconnected’ idea out of the water.
]]>Comment on Classic by Gobekli Tepe Part 3: The Alternative Mainstream • The Lateral Truthhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/#comment-136983
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:41:32 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?page_id=789#comment-136983[…] Gobekli Tepe Part 3: The Alternative Mainstream Headline Gobekli Tepe, Part 2: The Archaeology Headline Gobekli Tepe, Pt.1: The Background […]
]]>Comment on Gobekli Tepe, Part 2: The Archaeology by Gobekli Tepe Part 3: The Alternative Mainstream • The Lateral Truthhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/11/05/gobekli-tepe-archaeology/#comment-136982
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:41:16 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?p=1158#comment-136982[…] Gobekli Tepe Part 3: The Alternative Mainstream Headline Gobekli Tepe, Part 2: The Archaeology Headline Gobekli Tepe, Pt.1: The Background Headline The Myth of Archaeological Orthodoxy […]
]]>Comment on Gobekli Tepe, Pt.1: The Background by Gobekli Tepe Part 3: The Alternative Mainstream • The Lateral Truthhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/10/22/gobekli-tepe-pt-1-background/#comment-136981
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:25:32 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?p=1146#comment-136981[…] Part 3: The Alternative Mainstream Headline Gobekli Tepe, Part 2: The Archaeology Headline Gobekli Tepe, Pt.1: The Background Headline The Myth of Archaeological Orthodoxy Headline The Rapture of David […]
]]>Comment on Gobekli Tepe, Part 2: The Archaeology by Martin Sweatmanhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/11/05/gobekli-tepe-archaeology/#comment-136972
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 20:07:15 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?p=1158#comment-136972To be clear, this is what we conclude in our Fox paper: ‘The proposal that Göbekli Tepe was, among other things, an observatory for monitoring the night sky, especially the Taurid meteor stream, because of the disastrous consequences of the YD event appears to be the most complete and consistent interpretation of its symbolism yet developed. Certainly, no other interpretation has the level of statistical support described here. ‘

Notice the ‘among other things’ qualification. My personal view, based on current evidence, is that Gobekli Tepe was most likely a kind of Monastery or University, that combined religious education with ritual and astronomy. There might well have been some people living there, perhaps all year, but I doubt there was an entire village camped on top of the hill. If people did live there, where they lived exactly is an open question. To my mind, the large circular enclosures appear to have a religious/educational/astronomical aspect, rather than habitation.

]]>Comment on Gobekli Tepe, Part 2: The Archaeology by Martin Sweatmanhttps://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/2018/11/05/gobekli-tepe-archaeology/#comment-136969
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 18:39:31 +0000http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/?p=1158#comment-136969Rebecca, you are quite right, it is speculation they were observatories, and I never claimed it wasn’t. I am careful about that. I have no hard evidence that the enclosures were used as observatories just as you have no hard evidence they were roofed. The difference between us is that while I admit this speculation you made a very strongly worded statement that they were ‘almost certainly’ roofed. You need to provide very strong evidence to support this.
However, this is really beside the point. The only issue that really concerns me is interpretation of the symbols. After all, this will tell us the motivation for building the site and provide clues as to its function. As I said earlier, it is now beyond any reasonable doubt that my interpretation of the animal symbols is correct. In my papers I provide exceptionally strong scientific evidence to back this up. Based on this interpretation, their function as observatories is entirely reasonable, although, I agree, open to debate. As to how they might have functioned as observatories, I can’t see a major problem. To be clear, I said the pillars might have been ‘relatively free standing’. There are many ways the pillars can be stabilised, whilst remaining ‘relatively free standing’ that don’t entail roofs. I don’t think I need to be precise about this.

I notice you still haven’t provided the very strong evidence needed to support your claim they were ‘almost certainly’ roofed. It seems to me you might be stalling…